Near ppm

[Curiouscat33]

Do we have the technology to transform mechanical energy, like that of a bouncing ball, into electricity? If so, would bouncing an incredibly large/dense “bouncy ball”, between two such surfaces, with a high initial rate of speed, in space, work to generate more energy than was used to start the ball movement. 

I figured the two “pads” for converting the energy would be across from each other within a ring, as to prevent a loss of the ball’s inertia when bouncing  

The ball would bounce between the two surfaces for an incredibly long time creating energy everytime it does so. 

I know its obviously not a perpetual motion machine for a number of reasons, but could it potentially work for long enough to create more energy in the end than it took to run it.

Im no scientist but thought it was a cool idea. Please lmk if i missed something

[DrP]

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

Do we have the technology to transform mechanical energy, like that of a bouncing ball, into electricity?

yes.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

If so, would bouncing an incredibly large/dense “bouncy ball”, between two such surfaces, with a high initial rate of speed, in space, work to generate more energy than was used to start the ball movement. 

no. also you'd loose energy to heat and sound with each bounce.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

The ball would bounce between the two surfaces for an incredibly long time creating energy everytime it does so. 

energy would be converted not created.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

I know its obviously not a perpetual motion machine for a number of reasons, but could it potentially work for long enough to create more energy in the end than it took to run it.

How would that be possible?  As the answer to the above question about generating more energy than was used to bounce it in the first place was no, again, unfortunately no. You would fail to convert most of the energy from the ball to electricity... most would be converted to sound and heat as the ball bounces.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

Do we have the technology to transform mechanical energy....... into electricity?

A dynamo or a turbine of some kind? I can think of several inefficient ways to convert the energy from a bouncing ball to electricity but, unless you have invented flubber, it would not be worth the effort.

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by DrP

[Curiouscat33]

I dont understand why all of the energy is lost to heat and sound? 

Again forgive me if im off base, but this guy sounds like hes saying the bounce of ball loses no momentum in space. So, why in my idea would the ball not bounce between the two surfaces and continually convert more energy into electricity. Also, it doesnt take a lot of energy to fire a small object at high rates of speed. 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

I dont understand why all of the energy is lost to heat and sound? 

It's not. But some will be. If you start out with E₀ of energy, then losing some to heat and sound means less than E₀ can be converted to other forms.

10 minutes ago, Curiouscat33 said:

Again forgive me if im off base, but this guy sounds like hes saying the bounce of ball loses no momentum in space. So, why in my idea would the ball not bounce between the two surfaces and continually convert more energy into electricity. Also, it doesnt take a lot of energy to fire a small object at high rates of speed. 

momentum and energy are different properties. Momentum conservation is only one dynamic involved in your proposal.

[MigL]

Even momentum conservation depends on the kind of collision.

And yes, getting more energy out than you put in, is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
And those simply don't exist.
( not even 100 % energy conversion; except for special cases )

[swansont]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Even momentum conservation depends on the kind of collision.

The kinds of collision (elastic, inelastic, completely inelastic) refer to the conservation of KE. Momentum is conserved when there is no net external force acting on the system, which is typically true in a collision.

[MigL]

Thanks for the correction and clarification, Swansont.

[jajrussel]

On 6/12/2019 at 8:38 PM, MigL said:

Even momentum conservation depends on the kind of collision.

And yes, getting more energy out than you put in, is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
And those simply don't exist.
( not even 100 % energy conversion; except for special cases )

I’ll try to remember this. I didn’t know that getting more energy out than is put in was a requirement of the machine. This changes my understanding since I thought the only requirement was uninterrupted inertia. 🙏 

[studiot]

On 6/12/2019 at 12:25 PM, Curiouscat33 said:

Also, it doesnt take a lot of energy to fire a small object at high rates of speed

 

Wouldn't it be nice if this principle could be used in a bar?

After all it only takes a small amount of money to buy one drink.

But if you used the same amount lots of times think how many drinks you could get.

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by studiot